Posted on 08/30/2009 2:03:16 PM PDT by NYer
According to YOUR interpretation of Scripture.
Considering that Orthodoxy and Catholicism have taken the side of modernism in that conflict, it is puzzling why they would criticize Fundamentalist Protestants for not accepting the teachings of the church fathers. Catholics and Orthodox reject everything the fathers taught that is denied by modern "science!"
“I have not heard that they embraced Nestorism before.”
Around here Nestorianism and Iconoclasm are the commonest, most often found heresies. Thy both pop up with truly alarming frequency among protestant posters.
I doubt you really feel that way.
Now this party can really get started!! :)
There is nothing funny about the blatant hypocrisy displayed by the Catholics and Orthodox on this thread.
Did something happen to wideawake?
Well you may ask! He disappeared last November and hasn't been heard of sense! And since he's apparently the only Catholic who agreed with me on these issues and who understood their importance, I miss him terribly.
They cite scripture all over the place.
I'm not sure why you think that an encyclical which gives a reference to a particular writing by a particular church father or saint has to reiterate and explain his entire argument.
The only thing that has the kind of "he said it, therefore I believe it" authority you're talking about in the Catholic Church would be Scripture, and the infallible pronouncements of Councils and Popes. The writings of Augustine are neither of those two things, therefore, anything Augustine wrote is valid only insofar as it does not contradict those sources.
An argument has no authority because it comes from Luther or Augustine. For authority, it need to comply with scripture.
An argument has no authority because it comes from James White, either, yet you cite him.
By the way, who is qualified to judge whether Luther's, or Augustine's, or White's argument "complies with scripture" or not ... and who gave that judge that authority?
I would say "real presence" means "substantially." The question scarcely relates to Catholic teaching on "Transubstantiation." The confusion arises from not understanding what "substance" means as used in the Catholic theological discussion of the Eucharist. It is not at all clear what the relationship between "substantially" and "physically" might be, except that they sure aren't synonyms or interchangeably. Similarly the distinction between "substantially" and "spiritually" is not as crisp as some protestants make it out to be.
It gets wearying combating straw men.
You do know that church fathers also stated they saw Genesis as allegory? I forget who it was but I am sure someone knows who it was.
In any case.
You must not know that the Orthodox Church only accepts the pronouncements of at least the first 7 Ecumenical Councils as infallible.
The Church fathers are guides, etc but are not treated as gurus. That was the heretical error of Paulines.
Not being a chr*stian, I disagree vehemently with you about sola scriptura and regula fide, but these differences are small compared with the things I disagree with Catholicism and Orthodoxy about.
You yourself seem to be missing a most important point: the Catholic and Orthodox churches actually deny the total inerrancy of the Bible and the historicity of the events and people it describes because of the findings of modern "science" and the Biblical criticism of nineteenth century liberal Protestants. Whenever the church fathers and these latter things contradict each other they accept science and liberal Protestantism hands down, uniformly rejecting the right of the church fathers to pronounce on anything contrary to them. Yet they have the unmitigated gall to scold Fundamentalist Protestants for not accepting the church fathers!
Just what is it about the Six Days of Creation, Metushelach's 969 years, Noah's Flood, Jonah's great fish, or Daniel in the lion's den that threatens them so much? Why do they all but make rejection of these things a standard of their "orthodoxy" while condemning the modernity of Protestantism?
I'll never understand them, and yes, their hypocrisy infuriates me, which I am sure amuses them.
Augustine said that the creation account in Genesis was a condescension to our limited understanding.
Obviously, he was influenced by 19th Century German liberal Protestants in this. As everyone knows.
As far as I can gather, ZC, you cannot question Real Presence, whereas on the other hand, you can question the Fathers on the creation, and due to the ungodly disorientation of the world, too many Catholics and Orthodox choose the skepticism of miracles of the world over the thought of the Fathers.
I appreciate the pings, it’s an interesting discussion.
If I had a dollar for every Nestorian declaration posted in earnest on FR, I’d end the Freepathon right now.
Thank you. I have limited memory skills in the AM.
So? Something does not have to be a-historical to have allegorical meanings. But for some reasons you Orthodox and Catholics seem to insist that these things simply did not happen.
And which part of Genesis is allegory, btw? All of it? The first eleven chapters? The first 25 chapters? It seems to me that you only reject what constitutes "things that just don't happen." May I point out that people don't rise from the dead or get conceived without male sperm either? I guess that means that your J*sus wasn't born of a virgin and didn't rise from the dead either. That was all an allegory. Unless you want to be a hypocrite, of course. BTW, I find it ironic that you defend the Moscow Patriarchate to Tailgunner Joe, considering that that Patriarchate is notoriously "creationist."
The Church fathers are guides, etc but are not treated as gurus. That was the heretical error of Paulines.
Then I suggest you stop berating the Fundamentalists for not accepting them as gurus. Your hypocrisy is palpable.
See what I mean, Mr. Rogers?
Well, there is that little matter of Jesus of Nazareth being the Messiah of Israel and God Incarnate who rose from the dead on the third day, too, but let's forget about that minor detail so we can join together to blame the errors of Wellhausen, Baur, von Harnack, and Darwin on the Pope of Rome.
So every time the pope issues a statement of some kind he should include a section which explains how and to what degree and why statements sourced to something not in the Bible are authoritative? WHY Should he do this? If the question is already settled, more or less, why hash it out again?
The possibility that a protestant might not understand the way other documents are used as authorities cannot be allowed to dominate every statement by the Pope; that would be silly.
Post your magisterial references right here. Papal documents and decrees of councils only; what theologians or Bible editors think is not authoritative.
Obviously, he was influenced by 19th Century German liberal Protestants in this. As everyone knows.
The non-literalism of Augustine on Genesis is well-known to all. Unless for some reason you regard him as the sole authority on this issue I see little reason for the continual using of him as a club.
I hope you also reject such childish supernaturalisms as the virgin birth and the resurrection of J*sus, btw. Things like this simply don't happen, so they couldn't have. That's the way the reasoning goes, isn't it?
I "berate" Fundamentalists for not accepting the 7 ecumenical councils. I assume you were using the "royal you" to mean all Orthodox/Catholics/Apostolic Churches.
The Orthodox for example have some issues with St. Augustine. That is not a big deal because what guides the faith of the Orthodox Church is the pronouncements of the Ecumenical Councils.
The Church Fathers are important guides to be sure but their works are commentaries on the scripture not scripture itself. All individual men are fallible.
If there's any humor in not knowing the difference between "apparent inconsistency" and "blatant hypocrisy" it also escapes me.
Thank you for weighing in, Pyro. I only wonder why the "real presence" gets a free pass by these naturalists.
Oh, that's right! They believe it because "those awful people" (you know, with names like "Billy Bob") find them strange and alien. If Billy Bob believes it, then we must reject it, but if Billy Bob is offended, it is obviously the most important thing in the world!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.